PT16.S2.Q19 - The Volunteers for Literacy Program would Benefit

McBeck418

Hi,
Hopefully someone can help me out. I'm very confused by this question. I have no idea how the logic in this question works. I thought it was about Dolores' ability to fulfil a need, which made E tempting, but I'm struggling to figure out what makes A-D different from each other and what is actually going on.

Thanks!

Sailor Moon LSAT

This one isn't really about using logic so much as getting the structure right. I think it's tricky because you see logic and you want it to be an easy parallel logic structure.

I hope this explanation helps.

Dolors is far more skillful than Victor in financial support AND Dolores does not alienate like Victor does
Conclusion: If dolores takes Victor's place as director --> then the volunteers for literacy program would benefit.

The way I see this is that the conclusion has a conditional statement in it, and the premise has two other positive equities for Dolores.

I think you are looking for a stimulus that has two positive things about something in comparison to another thing and therefore the conclusion states a good outcome will happen if that thing/person is used/implemented rather than the other thing/person.

Not sure if that's the best way to look at this stimulus, but here is my approach.

A: Bus stop is closer than the subway (+1); Bus stop goes directly to school and subway does not (+1); we need the conclusion to say something about the bus benefiting her if she takes it. The conclusion says: it would be more convenient for Dominique (that's a positive) to take the bus than the subway. (this is like, if she takes the bus, then it would be more convenient for her). This seems pretty good.

B: Primary concern is traveling cheaply (this isn't a positive... - this is just a concern) so this is already looking off. The bus is less expensive (1 positive). The conclusion is fine (Joshua would be better served by taking the bus), but because there is only positive for the bus, I don't think this is right.

C: this is wrong because there isn't any positives. It starts off by saying
-the concert takes place on a Friday (this is just a statement) and there is exceptionally heavy traffic near the concert hall on Fridays (negative).. doesn't match, but anyway, the conclusion is Belinda will get to the concert more quickly via subway (subway isn't mentioned at all till the conclusion - so it's introducing a new idea anyway. This needed to say two positive things about the subway, and how it would've benefitted Belinda to take the subway then)

This seems not so parallel from the start because it has negative aspects of a car, but then concludes about it's better to take the train. It would've been more parallel to say positive things about the train, rather than dunk on the car, and then conclude it's better to take the train. I didn't do an analysis as closely for this one, but that's why I think it's wrong.

E: I also think E is wrong because the premise starts off by saying
1.Fred needs to arrive at the meeting before other participants (not a negative or a positive about the bus vs train - just a statement - so this is actually similar to AC B from the start
2. the second premise is a conditional statement that is a negative about a bus: if he goes by bus, he will not arrive before all others.

So already, the premises don't parallel the stimulus.

The conclusion says It would be to Fred's advantage to exchange bus ticket for train tickets.

To have been right, we needed both premises to talk about hte positive aspects of taking the train (in comparison to the bus).

After doing all of these, I think A is right.

McBeck418

Ah. Thanks for your response! I appreciate it.